Today, a federal appeals court is considering whether President Donald Trump had the authority to create his sweeping tariff plan. His administration justified this plan by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). In early April, officials outdid themselves by proposing a truly audacious plan to establish a near-global baseline tariff of 10%. They even set disproportionately high rates for countries like Canada, Mexico, and China. Trump doesn’t have the authority to impose these tariffs. This provision is under skepticism in courts, with plaintiffs asserting that the IEEPA does not authorize a sitting president to hold such powers.
The IEEPA, passed in 1977, is the authority normally used to impose economic sanctions during a national emergency. Trump’s use of this act to impose tariffs represents a historical first since the law’s inception. In V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, the plaintiffs allege that Trump has exceeded his constitutional bounds. They argue he’s usurped Congress’s power to set tariffs, taking it into his own unilateral hands. They make the case that retaliatory tariffs must be based on legislative authority granted in the Constitution to the legislative branch of government.
During his closing argument, Neal Katyal, the attorney representing plaintiffs, stressed the unique and unprecedented nature of all of Trump’s claims. He stated, “The president is saying he, on his own, with his say-so, can impose these tariffs.” As he went on to say, “And that’s something no president in 200 years has really believed. Indeed, the fully legitimate tariff power dates back to the Revolutionary War. It was born from the ground-up revolt of the Boston Tea Party type, and the issues that inspired that.
As the appeals court ponders its ruling, it seems doubtful about the Justice Department’s argument on behalf of Trump’s tariff regime. Over 300 tariffs are scheduled to re-take effect this coming Friday. This means tariffs for countries with which the U.S. has negotiated tariff-reduction agreements, and those named in Trump’s latest trade-letters of death. This deadline makes the stakes all the greater for the court’s ruling.
Katyal pointed out the constitutional implications of Trump’s actions: “And our Constitution was very clear in saying, you know, there’s one branch that has the power to tariff and it isn’t the president and it isn’t the courts. It’s the Congress of the United States.”
V.O.S Selections are just one among a dozen or so active lawsuits and legal challenges to Trump’s excessive tariffs. Let this case be a turning point. It would likely have a huge impact on the future of several other legal challenges to the president’s new-found tariff authority.
In fact, Trump’s justification for his tariff strategy is exactly that—it is the only way to ensure our survival. He tweeted earlier this week, “If our Country was not able to protect itself by using TARIFFS AGAINST TARIFFS, WE WOULD BE ‘DEAD,’ WITH NO CHANCE OF SURVIVAL OR SUCCESS.” He said he had faith in his legal team to respond to what he called “America’s greatest big case today.”
The court’s upcoming ruling will have significant implications not only for Trump’s tariff plan but for the broader balance of power between the presidency and Congress regarding economic policy-making. Legal experts are watching these developments closely. Here’s why we think it has the potential to drastically alter the balance of presidential power over tariffs.